The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy declared victory when a superior court judge ruled in its favor regarding an injunction filed by the group, which seeks to ban overnight camping in Malibu. The ruling, however, is not final
By Olivia Damavandi / Staff Writer
A group of Malibu homeowners have just lost their first round in court against the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy in an effort to prevent overnight camping in Malibu parks.
Ventura County Superior Court Judge Richard B. Wolfe last week ruled against the Ramirez Canyon Preservation Fund, which sought an injunction to the conservancy’s Malibu Parks Public Access Enhancement Plan, which would include an amendment to Malibu’s local coastal program and would allow overnight camping in Malibu. The conservancy’s parks’ plan includes overnight camping in Ramirez, Corral and Escondido canyons.
However, Ramirez Canyon Preservation Fund lawyer Steven Amerikaner said Monday that the ruling has not yet been finalized and that a final decision will be made next week.
Christiana Bull Arndt, who represents the conservancy in the lawsuit in the office of the Attorney General, confirmed Monday that the ruling is not final and explained that the plaintiffs filed an objection to the court’s initial decision because they felt the court did not respond to one of their legal arguments.
The Malibu Parks Public Access Enhancement Plan has long been criticized on various grounds by Malibu officials and residents who are opposed to overnight camping in Ramirez, Corral and Escondido canyons because of heightened fire risks and the narrow accesses for emergency vehicles to the areas. Though the proposed plan would prohibit campfires, residents doubt the extent to which that rule would be enforced.
The City of Malibu has also proposed an amendment to its local coastal program that would prohibit overnight camping. The California Coastal Commission will hear the rival proposed LCP amendments when it meets from June 10 to 12 in the Los Angeles area.
The lawsuit claims the conservancy violated state law last year by granting $385,000 of its $20 million of voter-approved Proposition 50 bond money to the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority for the parks enhancement project. Also included in the grant was money designated to cover litigation costs involved with the parks project. The plaintiffs, led by Thousand Oaks resident Jere Robings, say the bond money can only be granted to certain kinds of entities, and the MRCA does not qualify. They also say that money cannot be used for litigation.
The plan proposes to create a total of 29 overnight camping sites at the parks in Ramirez, Escondido and Corral canyons; 32 special events per year at the conservancy’s Ramirez Canyon property; a 32-space parking lot at the top of Winding Way and improvements to local trails to create the Coastal Slope Trail that would connect the east and west ends of Malibu.
The fight over the conservancy’s plan has caused accusations to fly about NIMBYism and some critics have gone as far as saying racism is involved as well.
“This has nothing to do with NIMBYism,” Mayor Pro Tem Sharon Barovsky said in a telephone interview on Friday. “This has to do with residents’ fears of losing their homes and their lives. I do think there are more appropriate places for the campsites that the ones the conservancy chose.”
“We are very concerned as much as the homeowners are about the fire,” Laurie Collins, the conservancy’s chief staff council, said Friday in a telephone interview.
In a press release last week, the conservancy stated that they had won “a major lawsuit.” Amerikaner, however, said in a telephone interview on Monday that the ruling has not yet been finalized.
“There was another hearing this morning on some suggestions to change the judgment,” Amerikaner said. “The court took that under advisement and will issue a hearing, I think Monday of next week.”
Arndt said the conservancy’s responses to the objection would be issued no later than Friday and refused to offer any prediction of the court’s pending decision.
“The judge said he had anticipated getting a written ruling out very soon after that,” Arndt said, adding that an April 16 hearing is scheduled in which the final ruling will be made official.
In a telephone interview Monday, Joe Edmiston, the conservancy’s executive director, said, “The [Malibu] residents’ concerns are to keep people out of Malibu. Everything else is a smoke screen.”
He declined to comment any further on the subject.
Responding to Edmiston’s comment, Amerikaner said, “It’s inappropriate for a state official to attack his critics rather than deal with the issues.
“It’s [the lawsuit is] not just about causing campfires, it’s about bringing large groups of the public up into Ramirez Canyon, a high fire hazard area, without having adequate means of evacuation,” Amerikaner said, adding that safety is the number one concern of Malibu residents and that the lawsuit is in the public’s best interest.
Collins on Friday said Malibu residents who filed the lawsuit are “anti-public access.
“Before the camping issue came up, the same homeowners didn’t want to have public trails or a pubic parking lot at Escondido,” Collins said. “They’re all for the conservancy saving tax dollars, acquiring public lands and saving them from development, but they want the access all for themselves.”
“We have 15 million visitors a year in Malibu,” Barovsky said on Friday. “If we’re opposed to [public] access we’re not doing a very good job. As for the trails, I would ask that they [the conservancy] look at our Trails Master Plan because we have been opening trails for years in Malibu and have in many instances worked very well with the conservancy.”
Should the Coastal Commission amend the LCP to the conservancy’s favor, the Malibu Parks Public Access Enhancement Plan must still undergo a full environmental review and a California Environmental Quality Act review that will be open for public comment.
The City of Malibu may decide to continue a lawsuit it filed against the state last July that was invalidated in October by a Los Angeles Superior Court judge who said the city had to wait until the Coastal Commission voted on the issue before legal action could be taken.